4 ms·
> Relying on proxies like "innovation tokens" feels to me like a mistake because it is, fundamentally, trying to replace strategic thinking with a points system
by gfodor 4y ago
> Relying on proxies like "innovation tokens" feels to me like a mistake because it is, fundamentally, trying to replace strategic thinking with a points system.
No, it’s making it clear that there’s a scarcity you have to manage that is non-obvious: too many novel tech choices and you end up getting burned by the sum of all their risks leading to perpetual problems. If you have engineers literally allocating themselves a fixed number of tokens they don’t understand the talk.
- zero_shift 4y agoSo why use any novel technologies, then? Why don't we use tech from the 1990s? Is it just neophilia? Or is it that tech companies, by their nature, are about automating new things by applying, building, leveraging new technology? And that they are invested in because people want to make a bet on those productivity multipliers?
- camgunz 4y agoI get some of what you're saying, but a lot of your posts caricature OP's position. They're not saying "don't ever choose new technology" or "never upgrade your programming language" (e.g. staying on Java 6). They're arguing that there's a human dynamic that tends to focus on the benefits of new tech without acknowledging the costs and risks, and not accounting for that dynamic can be ruinous. Evaluating technology choices is hard. There are a lot of moving pieces. Sometimes it's 100% the right choice to use Django or Hugo; others it's 100% the right choice to use Nuxt.js. This presentation gives engineers tools to better evaluate the tradeoffs involved. It is in some ways a polemic, but to me that's just to make it an interesting presentation.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]